A survey of UK attitudes to mobile payments reckons that £3 a time is the sweet spot for topping up wallets, with 65 per cent of you looking forward to pay-by-tap. Paying for the privilege of adding credit to a purse was the option selected by 34 per cent of respondents to the survey, which was carried out by marketing …
I'll stick with the plastic thanks.
Anyone who wants to charge me to spend my own money in a slightly more convenient way can go fuck themselves. With schemes like this in the UK, why is it a surprse that so many people are incapable of managing their money these days? No different to mugs who accept the "£2.50 to use your credit card" charges.
Won't be adopting unless it costs me no more than my card / cash.
How do you suggest we book flights these days then? The wrong-doing isn't always on the part of the (abused?) consumer.
> Anyone who wants to charge me to spend my own money in a slightly more convenient way can go fuck themselves
For what it's worth, every time you pay with a *credit* card, Visa / Mastercard takes a 2-3% cut, which, surprise, will get added on to the shop prices to compensate. (And with American Express, it's nearer 5%...... ever wondered why so few small shops take Amex?)
If you are paying your friendly, local business, pay 'em in cash. They will appreciate not letting the credit card companies dip a finger in the pie, and cash-flow can be an issue with small business. (The credit card companies will only pay the merchant monthly)
Debit cards on the other hand, charge a flat fee (rather than a percentage) typically of a few pence. All the same, I'd rather pay cash and not let these parasites take a cut.
I don't think so.
Most banks charge small business quite a bit to "handle cash"
Also the poor shop keeper has to make sure he doesn't get robbed of it either in the shop or on the way to the bank.
The charges made by credit card companies are excessive too. however debit cards do not get charged in the same way. Businesses pay a flat fee or a few 10's of pence for Debit Cards.
That's cheap when you consider the aggro accepting cash entails.
e-wallets etc should be no different.
If you pay them in cash they then need to make sure they have enough change on premises at all times to give you change.
Then they have to transport said cash to a bank most likely, since the majority of their expenses will probably not accept cash. That then is either a high risk transfer themselves or they pay someone like securicor to transport it for them.
Then there is the insurance, buying a safe or whatever they feel they need and the fact that stolen cash is very hard to recover. Perhaps paying by card IS the better way.
mugs who accept the £2.50 to use your credit card
not a mug m8.
just capable of making the calculation as to whether the convenience of using the machine in front of me is worth the charge, or do i walk christ knows how far, taking christ knows how long out of my busy day to the nearest 'free' atm.
sometimes i do, sometimes i dont
you pays your money and you takes your choice
Obviously never worked in an industry where you are presented with these choices.
Merchant accounts pay out based on your arrangement with them. I've had monthly, weekly and daily settlements in my past - all depends on their view of your businesses (and the transactions) risk.
Cash is quite an expensive way of handling a business - you have additional insurance costs for cash on the premises, banking isn't free (and any mug out there who thinks it is better wake up!), there is a risk of cash disappearing from the till, an additional cost of maintaining the tills as well as keeping an adequate float. Additional reconciliation headaches (although you have that with CC it can at least have a degree of automation) plus deemed time per transaction (possibly not an issue but again, depends on the business).
Whilst CC is hardly risk free (increasing CC fraud etc) it is a convenient way to get to the cash into the business if done right - the charges you quote are probably not a million miles off but it does depend on the volume of your business and its deemed risk to the merchant (for example, Tesco will not be charged 3% by VISA)
The credit card company pays the merchant about 2-3 days after the transaction takes place. It costs shops money to take cash as well, so debit cards are actually the cheapest way to pay them.
I avoid those cash machines that want to charge me a goddamn thing.
Usually the pub will take your card anyway! Just order another drink.. or two.. to get to over their minimum card limit!
I'd much rather pay the pub for a beer than watch it disappear into a goddamn cash machine.. just so I can get my cash. Jog on, cash machine operators..
When you say stick with the plastic, prices on the shelf already include a 'plastic' handling charge, if you use cash you can get upto 5.4% off at the checkout just by asking.
are you smoking, and can i have some?
Try going into Tesco or Starbucks and 'negotiating' with the cashier because you're giving them some metal discs instead of a piece of plastic. You'll get laughed at. The types of places that will be using e-wallets will not be pricing according to whether you pay by debit or cash.
I think I'd be prepared to pay as much as taking cash from an ATM and putting it in my actual wallet. And that's free. Unless somebody could demonstrate a big benefit of this cashless payment thing (is dealing with cash really losing us as individuals that much time?) I don't think I could justify paying more than a few pence.
ATMs aren't free for chavs.
If you have a "basic" bank account in the UK, you've probably just been cut off from the "free" cash machines that most banks provide at their own premises and at supermarkets. You may be able to use your own bank's ATM - perhaps only your own branch, I don't know - and maybe the ones that you do indeed have to pay to use, in small shops. And I don't know about Asda.
Tesco - I think it was Tesco, I don't swear to it - impressed me with their effrontery in offering an on-site cash machine that is not only free but actually donates to charity each time you use it. Perhaps you are wondering how much the donation is. It is 0.000125. One-eightieth of one penny. If I've got it right, that is. Imagine how embarrassing if I got a digit wrong and it's one-eighth of a penny. Red face, eh?
Businesses have a small cost of cash handling in the labour of moving money around and doing it securely, and possibly a large cost of some of it being nicked by employees. Sometimes it can be dealt with by docking it from wages. An interesting method that I heard about recently is to use this means of recovery when restaurant customers leave without paying, which implies that you won't have much trouble getting out of the door as long as your own waiter doesn't rugby-tackle you. And you won't have trouble catching their eye when you want another napkin, either.
But even so, eight pence cost to a retailer for you using chip and pin is something to think about.
And the rest of these charges on payment devices are a tax on the morlocks. Does that seem fair to you? I have qualms, actually.
Too many variables
if, probably, maybe, I don't know, I don't swear, perhaps, if I've got it right, possibly, sometimes, I heard of,
and wtf have 'chavs' got to do with this mess of uninformed blather.
Make your mind up ffs!
@Richard 22, "dealing with cash"
Another benefit of cash is we avoid the relentlessly increasing corporate spying on us all. I hate the idea of being charged for using my phone as a payment device, only to then have the additional insult of them using my phone payment as a way to spy on me as well. I've had enough, these parasites can frankly go fuck themselves.
I think you'll find quite a lot of people are now on basic bank accounts, not just "chavs"...
Why would I want to pay three pounds so that when someone nicks my phone they can buy themselves a latte?
Lacking the Obvious making it totally pointless
A classic fail! Like asking a turkey we're thinking we might kill and eat you for christmas this year, we're not sure if we're going to, so to help us decide this would you like to be eaten as part of the entre, main course or desert for christmas this year? (obvioulsy turkey and custard might be a bit nastry but hey ho ho ho)
I suppose the results of this very poor survey will be wheeled out when the cusomer starts to wonder why they are being charged to much money to use these types of systems, you wanted to pay a flat fee of £x everytime you top up... you told us so, even though the companies providing them will also be taking a % of the overall transactions each time they are made.
Anything and custard is a bit nasty.
3 quid a time? WTF?
There's another alternative, I'll continue to put paper cash into my physical wallet and use that instead.
And next time I buy a copy of the sun I'll give the retailer an extra fiver for the privelege of spending my money in his shop. Then when I get home I'll chuck all my money in the bin.
Regardless of current practice
If "electronic money", whatever the form, is to succeed, then handling your money electronically cannot cost much of anything. To me this "study" is intended as an industry enticement to get into this so far ailing game, and doesn't reflect punters' belief they'll actually use all this instead of the old wallet that costs something to buy but not anything to put money in or take out of. I mean, that wasn't an option in the "study", seriously.
All business transactions are charged for by the banks for handling. The amount isn't always small, either. This is how the banks are putting pressure on business to reject cheques: Putting up the fees until it's just not worth honoring them any more.
But to charge the consumer a fee up front... okay, that's double dipping as they'll also get a handling fee from the shop this money is spent at...
As to the nature of this study: They didn't allow a 'no fee' option, and £3 is a lot if you're only wanting to add £10 credit, so to me this is a skewed study and the intention is to push people to use this system more than, say, debit cards. After all, if it's a £3 fee per top up, you'd want to keep the top ups to a minimum, and then you'd want to spend that money, probably in preference to cash or debit card... and all the while the banks will be making a greater profit.
Be interesting to see what they charge the retailer for use of this system, though...
Speaking of current practice: Proton
(Still) In use in Belgium and quite handy IMO. And 100% free.
Speaking of proton...
... a bit up norf from there they didn't have one system, no, they had two: "Chipper" and the incompatible "Chipknip". That didn't fly so one gave up, but that didn't gain the other much breathing room for some reaon. And now they're trying again with the same thing redone in RFID. Various parties at various times went and done gone right ahead and forced use of the things, but uptake elsewhere has lagged and keeps on lagging. I don't know how widespread the Belgian proton system is, though I do know it's not compatible with the Dutch chipknip.
I say something is seriously wrong with the financial industry (and for that matter its governance) when they keep on pushing technologies and end up outright forcing people to use them because otherwise people just won't. Just keep on accepting cash instead of calculating the "gains" of no longer having to count coins before your customers have noticed your newfangled system has been deployed, eh. That sort of thing breeds ill-will.
I'd love to see the way the questions were phrased. As you've mentioned in the article the results seem fanciful in the extreme.
No 'free' option in survey???
<--- see icon
Let me get this straight...
... people are willing to spend up to £3 extra so they can spend their own money in selected outlets?
No doubt these same people would complain if they asked for £100 at the cash point and it only dispensed £95?
No wonder consumer debt is so high in the UK.
But that is what happens already
You will get the £100 from the ATM, but your account will be debited £100.08 (OK, I know that the charge is not applied immediately but I'm sure you see my point).
The banksters tell us the cashless society is better and 'safer' than carrying cash, it's a lie, its just an excuse to change you for taking your money out of the bank, that's after paying a charge to put in the bank in the first place.
Consider a not too large national bank, an average of 5 million transactions a night, 251 working days in the year, at 8p a transaction that's £100,400,000 a year in transaction charges.
But the scams don’t stop there, got a credit card? Did you use in a POS machine, enter your PIN and have the credit card approve the transaction only to find when you get your statement that the crucking funts charged you for letting you go over your limit…
May their arse-holes turn square and rot in the corners!
You've been had....
Never been charged 8p here...
...fuck and off.
half an hour?
Half an hours minimum wage to top-up an e-wallet?
That's crazy talk.
Where do they find these people?
I'm sure that, if asked, this lot would tell you they don't want no stinkin' free cash withdrawals, they go to the cornershop machines taking £1.70 regardless of transaction size. "Support your local cornershop" or somesuch.
There's one outside the MacDonalds at the end of my road; what's their excuse? I'm genuinely starting to think it's because they know that their 'broader' customers won't be willing to cross the road and walk 500 yards to the free one...
I agree with most of the above, many people are stupid and/or lazy, and will be more than willing to use these pay-to-pay services...
They were all being sarcastic since apparently noone said they wanted it free. To be honest these days anyone with a clipboard that won't go away get stupid answers from me, probably the same from everyone else especially since you say No ten times and get told but but.
Cap. Scarlet: Free wasn't an option, as I read it. So yes, I think they got a lot of stupid answers from those who don't agree with paying twice for this (you'll also pay the retailer as they'll get charged per transaction, too).
There are people that say it is possible to charge too low a fee for moving your own money about?! What asylum was this survey conducted in?
From my cursory look at the graph I would say that the sweet spot (if they must charge) is below £1. After that you get at least a 20% leap in the "dislike"... The people conducting this survey seem to think that the sweet spot should be defined as "pissing off less that 50% of your customers".
Tobin Taxes to kill economy - in micro
Even the greediest cashpoints only take 2:50! How on earth do they think that £3 will encourge e-wallets over the handy numbered pictures of the Queen?
Sounds like people thought they were being asked how much they wanted to put on the card each time. What was the exact question and context?
Give me my money for free
I'm always intrigued why people think that it should be free to “get my money”. This applies to old and new technologies. Someone has to take you cash, process it, install and maintain the network of cash machines and make sure the cash machine you want to withdraw it from has the cash available.
How many companies supply their services for free? When you put your stuff into storage do you expect Access to look after it for free because it’s your stuff? No, but you expect people to do that with your money and expect them to be responsible for it. As I recall the storage companies expect you to take out insurance for your goods, banks are, within limits, guaranteed.
I know banking is different as they can use your money to try (rather unsuccessfully recently) to make money so they can, amongst other things, not charge you for their services in most cases.
I don’t expect this view to be popular, but I think you need to stop and think about the free service you are getting – it has to be paid for somehow and as a business they have to balance income with expenditure.
It's being paid for...
...by allowing them to loan on my money to other parties and making a nice chunk of interest out of it. Also I'm sure my money (and others) appears in some line in their yearly reports, indicating some form of success in their business and encouraging others to invest.
And I allow the banks to do this with my money for free. So if the bank wants to make it easier for me to transact my money with them; don't be taking the piss and try charging me for it. After all, a house safe is free, available 24 hours and a lot safer (pardon the pun).
I had this exact conversation with my bank manager 25 years ago and have not been charged any transaction charges since.
wrong target - it is reasonable to charge the retail outlets* to take money, as is seen with credit cards, debit cards, cheques etc. as they are the main ones benefiting from this kinds of tech**
Your storage analogy is well flawed - you only have two players - the punter and the storage company - with no mention of payment processor. Your analogy would be more realistic if you asked whether it would be reasonable for the storage company to periodically move your stuff around and charge you to do so.
Bank savings may be guaranteed, but they are guaranteed by the government (in short the taxpayer) not the bank - for fuck's sake man, should I be expected to pay the banks a premium for the benefit of paying for my own fucking insurance as well? Because that is what you are saying.
*Which means they will pass some or all of it into us, but that is the nature of business, and competition will make this fair and reasonable rather than an absurd £3 top-up
**The time and effort savings to me [in contactless paying] will be minimal, a couple of minutes a week probably, however the shop benefits massively through quicker customer turnaround, shorter queues, not having to handle large amounts of cash etc.
read up on fractional reserve banking, although it applies to deposits, banks are equally adept at managing, and using, money that is "in transit" or is in current accounts as well.
Think about who benefits
Step back in time to the days when people didn't have current accounts. Everyone was paid weekly in cash, and used that cash to buy things. If they wanted something expensive they put money in a jar each week to save for it.
Minor PITA for the man in the street, but a massive cost to employers, shops, the government, utility companies etc having to move all that money around.
When the banks invented personal banking, the benefits to individuals were so slight that if they had tried to charge people to "get their own money out" people would just have insisted in continuing to be paid in cash and pay for things in cash - no bank involvement at all. So the costs were either hidden (using the interest from your cash) or passed on to the shops etc who actually benefit.
Everything that has followed on from there is to save the banks money. ATMs cost, but a lot less than a human teller. Cards, DD cost, but less than cheques.
Maybe now we are in so deep that they can get away with charging us for things. But if a bank provides absolutely no method to withdraw your own money free of charge (even if that means attending a branch in person) people might want to go back to cash.
@ bitmap animal
You've no idea how banks actually work, do you?
7 million of us in London already use an e-wallet thanks, and we absolutely don't pay for top-ups. If they tried to charge £3 for every oyster top-up there would be riots all over again!
These poor businesses...
Haven't their friends in the music industry taught them how unfair it is to compete with free, how much money they will 'lose'? Or maybe they'll be a PR/lobbying campaign to criminalise/demonise paper money - "Every time you use untraceable paper cash, you are funding terrorist extremist Somali pirate people traffickers! Stay safe with our trackable, chargeable, e-cash system.
It's so simple, you just bend over the kiosk and pay."
I suspect that this is about setting a mindset. Retailers are now unhappy that they got us used to "free" credit card use - they have to pay the provider of the service. Some now make a "credit card" surcharge - although it many cases this is just trying it on - the prices didn't go down to cash buyers when the cc charge got added - and it's amazing what happens with some retailers if you just say "no thank you, then" when asked.
Someone will have to pay for e-money and someone will want to make a profit from it. Either we pay or the reatiler does (i.e. we pay but don't notice it). The providers, hope (expect) that they can make it both. The big boys will initlially be able to say to the providers "we want price X" - until there is large user base in which many retailers will have to "fodl" and accept the %age the providers want. But in the interim, where the providers need to make market share, charge the user and not (or ather lower rates) the retailer makes sense.
Eventually, once there are enough users, the providers might have to change tack as consumers will be attracted by a better deal. In the end, even those who decide to keep using their paper money will wned up paying for the services - much like cash users pay for credit cards to day.
Of course, there still are retailers - esecially the low cost (e.g. Lidl) who won't take credit cards, for instance. And small retailers usually pya higher %ages. So somethign sniliar will happen with these schemes if they ever take off.
Remeber, as well, the organisations that currently distribute the folding stuff will probably control the e-versions - you can already hear the "no demand" argument .....
Funny thing, Lidl here in Wales take credit cards - but not those in England.
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web video' cannon to SINK Netflix
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? I need a password to BRAKE? What? No! STOP! Aaaargh!
- Episode 13 BOFH: WHERE did this 'fax-enabled' printer UPGRADE come from?
- Vulture at the Wheel Ford's B-Max: Fiesta-based runaround that goes THUNK